Teachings Contrary to Tradition? Religious Liberty
#31
I am just showing views on this issue before Vatican II. 
Reply
#32
More from Pius XII:

Quote:Increasingly frequent contacts between different religious professions, mingled indiscriminately within the same nation, have caused civil authorities to follow the principles of tolerance and liberty of conscience.  In fact, there is a political tolerance, a civil tolerance, a social tolerance, in regard to adherents of other religious beliefs which, in circumstances such as these, is a moral duty for Catholics.

The Catholic Church, as we have already said, is a perfect society and has as its foundation the truth of Faith infallibly revealed by God. For this reason, that which is opposed to this truth is, necessarily, an error, and the same rights which are objectively recognized for truth cannot be afforded to error. In this manner, liberty of thought and liberty of conscience have their essential limits in the truthfulness of God in Revelation.

-Allocution to the Roman Rota, October 6, 1946
Reply
#33
(02-02-2012, 09:43 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-02-2012, 09:11 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(02-02-2012, 08:20 PM)TrentCath Wrote: A) Lets not elevate the encyclopedia to being part of the magisterium

Obviously the encyclopedia is not part of the Magisterium, but it is written by expert who is aware of a vast body of information on the subject rather than the few passages taken out of context presented in this thread.  He seems more likely to know what the Church teaches than I could from reading a few encyclical quotes.

No, I am afraid the popes more likely know what is being taught, as for that matter do Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre. My point is simply that the quote does not in fact support religious liberty but does on the face of it appear to support some novel ideas, I am not going to get bogged down on it because seeing as it doesnt support religious liberty its not an issue.

In what way does it not support religious liberty?  If you write papers like this in school you will fail.  You keep making assertions but you do not "show your work".  

I have no background in this subject.  Think of how you might explain this to a child.  Don't worry about talking down to me. I won't be offended.

Reply
#34
13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism"[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him,"[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate."[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me."[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"[20]

14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit"[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos
Reply
#35
(02-02-2012, 07:45 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-02-2012, 06:13 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia's lengthy article on religious toleration written in the early 20th century:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14763a.htm

There is of course a world of difference between religious tolerance and religious freedom as Archbishop Lefebvre was wont to point out.

This seems to be the key here.  Complete religious liberty amounts to secularism/irreligion.

I've only read the first of the 4 encyclicals mentioned in the original post, plus the Catholic encyclopedia article so far.  I have a lot of catching up to do and it's my little girl's birthday tomorrow, so you probably won't hear from me till the weekend.  But I'll get back to this, and I do appreciate all of these responses so far.
Reply
#36
(02-02-2012, 10:00 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: More from Pius XII:

Quote:Increasingly frequent contacts between different religious professions, mingled indiscriminately within the same nation, have caused civil authorities to follow the principles of tolerance and liberty of conscience.  In fact, there is a political tolerance, a civil tolerance, a social tolerance, in regard to adherents of other religious beliefs which, in circumstances such as these, is a moral duty for Catholics.

The Catholic Church, as we have already said, is a perfect society and has as its foundation the truth of Faith infallibly revealed by God. For this reason, that which is opposed to this truth is, necessarily, an error, and the same rights which are objectively recognized for truth cannot be afforded to error. In this manner, liberty of thought and liberty of conscience have their essential limits in the truthfulness of God in Revelation.

-Allocution to the Roman Rota, October 6, 1946

Now you are quite obviously trying to find support for religious liberty in the teaching of the popes prior to Vatican 2, this again does not support religious liberty but only prudent religious toleration as is obvious by the fact the sentence continues 'have their essential limits in the truthfulness of God in Revelation', very different from the unbridled religious liberty proposed by Vatican 2 and the post Vatican 2 fathers.
Reply
#37
Holy ridiculously long posts Batman....LoL
Reply
#38
Okay I am all for someone very intelligent and balanced now synthesizing the views expressed by PP Gregory XVI as well as the writings quotes by Someone1776 (Pius XII, Bl. JHN, and others).

I have no idea what to make of all this!

Options I see:
1. Vatican II actually does contradict tradition on religious liberty, and it must be rejected.
2. Vatican II said nothing new, is saying what tradition has said, in typically very confused words, so we can safely ignore it or clarify it.
3. Vatican II only expressed one view of the several legitimate views traditionally allowed on religious liberty, overly influenced by liberal democracies it downplayed or ignored other views, and this fact should be clarified -- we don't have to agree with the stance V2 took.

Others?
Reply
#39
(02-03-2012, 09:13 AM)Guardian Wrote: Holy ridiculously long posts Batman....LoL

Sorry  :blush: but shortening the encyclicals any further would have defied the point of quoting them.
Reply
#40
(02-03-2012, 10:21 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: Okay I am all for someone very intelligent and balanced now synthesizing the views expressed by PP Gregory XVI as well as the writings quotes by Someone1776 (Pius XII, Bl. JHN, and others).

I have no idea what to make of all this!

Options I see:
1. Vatican II actually does contradict tradition on religious liberty, and it must be rejected.
2. Vatican II said nothing new, is saying what tradition has said, in typically very confused words, so we can safely ignore it or clarify it.
3. Vatican II only expressed one view of the several legitimate views traditionally allowed on religious liberty, overly influenced by liberal democracies it downplayed or ignored other views, and this fact should be clarified -- we don't have to agree with the stance V2 took.

Others?

Not that I can see, needles to say I agree with option 1 but that may just be me
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)